9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, Tractor Parts and MV Parts and had cleared the goods for export both under LUT on without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty and claimed rebate (refund) of duty paid. During audit it was noticed that the appellant was recovering tool and die charges from various parties on sale invoices issued to them without charging central excise duty. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2011 was issued to the appellant on the ground that the amount was being charged in addition to the sale amount recovered from the parties and in view of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, tool and dies development charges form the part of the assessable value as additional consideration and are thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The authority below was directed to calculate the duty in above terms and inform the appellant. The demand of duty to this extent was confirmed and also liable for equivalent penalty. Thereafter, the appellant wrote a letter dated 08.08.2013 to the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh and requested for calculation of duty in terms of the direction issued by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) but till date no such information has been received by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the case records. 7. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of export of goods and there is no dispute regarding the export of goods, foreign remittance and proof of export. We also find that the distinction made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the export under LUT is different from export under rebate is against the export policy because the exported goods are not subject to central excise duty and the entire situation is revenue neutral. 10. Further, we also find that inspite of the direction of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the impugned order, the lower authority failed to calculate the duty even after the expiry of 10 years. 11. Further, we find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. DR is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
